MuHJI?BuJ;9>D?

97B@EKHD7B&($(&&/
Knf\]Z`\ek]\iipZfeZ\gkj
8LK?FI1 FjbXi C\mXe[\i# ?\X[ f] :feZ\gk lXc ;\j` ^e# J_` g ;\j` ^e# Ni k j` c J_` g Gfn\i
K_\i\`jXe`eZi\Xj`e^e\\[]fi]\ii`\j
kf`eZi\Xj\k_\`iZfdg\k`k`m\e\jj%
8b\pXjg\Zkf]Zfjki\[lZk`fej`jkf
`dgifm\\e\i^p\]Z`\eZpXe[e\n
[\j`^ejZXe_\cg`ei\XZ_`e^k_`j
kXi^\k%
This article will look at two different ferry
types representing opposite ends of the
size spectrum, and compare how energy
efciency has been tackled in each case.
One of the ferries is a short route ferry for
day crossings, while the other is a large
cruise ferry providing attractive onboard
facilities for overnight passengers.
The smaller ferry represents a low cost
solution, featuring an innovative hull form
design and novel propulsion machinery.
Nevertheless, the systems are all simple and
have few components. The larger cruise
ferry, on the other hand, is equipped with
many new features representing the most
advanced technology available today.
J`q\dXkk\ij
Size has a big impact on the transport
efciency of a ship. The larger the
vessel, the more efcient it is. Low speed
means low energy consumption. These
maxims apply also to ferries. However,
when it comes to evaluating transport
efciency, ferries are somewhat trickier
than pure cargo vessels and there are
different opinions on how it should be
done. In a tanker or container vessel, the
payload is rather obvious. But a cruise
ferry, for instance, carries not only ro-ro
cargo, but also a complete hotel for the
passengers. Should only the weight of the
passengers be considered as payload? Or
should it include the entire superstructure
and all the various hotel functions?
In resolving this issue, many suggest that
it is better to use the volume (gross tonnage)
of the ships as the measurement, rather than
payload weight or deadweight. The IMO
(International Maritime Organization) has
also considered this principle in its proposal
for a CO
2
index. This index, and its rather
complicated formulas, is still under
discussion, but the main principle can be
simplied by including only a few main
parameters - installed power divided by
gross tonnage and speed. This gives a unit
of energy per transported ship size and
distance [kWh / (GT * nm)].
=`^%(K_`j,/#'''^kZil`j\]\iipi\gi\j\ekjjkXk\$f]$k_\$Xik\]Z`\eZp%
`e[\kX`c *.
R
D8I@E<&@E;<K8@C
T
R

D
8
I
@
E
<

&

@
E

;
<
K
8
@
C

If this power efciency factor is plotted
for existing ferries, a clear trend emerges
larger vessels get lower energy consumption
values. Furthermore, it can be seen from
Figure 2, that ferries with higher Froudes
numbers (dimensionless length to speed
ratio) usually end up above the mean
trend line, and the slow ones below. So,
even if speed is a parameter within the
formula, slow vessels still come out better.
Making ferries extremely large is, of
course, not always feasible or even possible.
There may be limited transport demand,
and restrictions in ports and fairways for
the size of ships that can be accommodated.
It should be noted that the simplied
power efciency factor does not give a
complete picture of energy efciency, since
savings in hotel power demand, waste heat
recovery, operating at reduced speed, and
other means for saving fuel
are not accounted for.
Froude number:
The Froude number is a dimensionless number indicating
the relation between a vessels length and its speed, expressed as:
where v=speed [m/s],
g=acceleration due to gravity [m/s
2
] = 9.81 m/s
2
, L=waterline length of vessel [m]
Fgk`d`q`e^jg\\[
Even though low speeds will yield lower
energy consumption and reduced fuel
costs, the slowing down of ferries is seldom
viable. In order to keep their passengers
happy, ferries need attractive itineraries
with convenient departure and arrival times.
In many cases, they are also competing
with other forms of transport, and speed
is, therefore, an essential factor in keeping
the passengers and trucks onboard.
Slowing down will also reduce the amount
of transported cargo and passengers per
time, and more ferries might be needed
on the same route. Selecting the right speed
thus becomes a critical success factor for
new ferry projects.
?lcc]fid
Speed and displacement are the two
dominating factors affecting the power
demand of a ship. Conventional ferries
often operate at Froude numbers between
0.25 and 0.35. These relatively high hull
speeds for displacement type vessels make
hydrodynamic optimization particularly
=`^%)K_\ki\e[`e[`ZXk\jk_XkcXi^\Xe[jcfnm\jj\cj_Xm\Xcfn\igfn\i\]Z`\eZp`e[\o%
J`dgc`\[gfn\i\]Z`\eZp`e[\o$^ifjjkfeeX^\
P
o
w
e
r

e

c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
d
e
x

[
k
W
h

/

(
n
m

'

C
T
)
]
)
>ifjjkfeeX^\R>KT
Froude's nr 0.35-0.40)
Froude's nr 0.30-0.35)
Froude's nr 0.25-0.30)
Froude's nr 0.20-0.25)
Shorl roule erry (Fn 0.28)
Cruise erry (Fn 0.27)
0 ) l0,000 ) 20,000 ) 30,000 ) 40,000 ) 50,000 ) 60,000)
0.l40)
0.l20)
0.l00)
0.080)
0.060)
0.040)
0.020)
0.000)
*/ `e[\kX`c
MuHJI?BuJ;9>D?97B@EKHD7B&($(&&/
important. In order to reach the lowest
possible resistance, the block (and prismatic)
coefcient of such vessels should be low.
Careful optimization of the main
dimensions is of the utmost importance
during the initial stages of ferry design.
Lengthening the hull gives a lower block
coefcient and Froude number and
thereby reduced wave resistance. Added
beam and draft can also result in a lower
block coefcient and produce positive
effects in some cases. Too low L/B ratios
should, however, be avoided.
The effective length can also be
increased by adding a ducktail, which
is quite popular in ferries. Other stern
features, such as trim wedges and
interceptors, can also yield good results,
especially at high Froude numbers.
The two ferry designs developed have
hull forms where the waterline length has
been maximized within the overall length
of the vessel. They are also longer than
competing vessel designs. For example, the
length of the short route ferry is stretched
510 m compared to a conventional ferry
of the same size. Already a 5 m length
increase, gives a 14% effective power (hull
resistance) saving at service speed and
20% saving at trial speed. Furthermore,
in order to offer very low added resistance
in heavy seas, the bow has been designed
to have a ne waterline entry angle and a
vertical stem prole with low are angles.
Even though added length is easy to
justify from a power saving point of view,
it is sometimes difcult to realize in practice.
There are restrictions on the size of vessels
in many ports, and ships should be able
to turn in the port basin and t alongside
the quay. Draft is sometimes limited by
the fairways leading into port. However,
since the benets of longer vessels are so
clear, naval architects should ask if these
limits are carved in stone or if they can
be changed. Investing in improved port
facilities could perhaps be more lucrative
than investing in too much engine power.
Klie$Xifle[k`d\`egfik
It is not only investments in bigger ports
that can be interesting; development of the
port infrastructure can also pay itself back
quite quickly. Speeding up port time is
almost always benecial, and the shorter
the turnaround time in port is, the slower
the ship can sail while still maintaining the
same departure frequency. A 10 minute
saving can, for example, produce annual
fuel savings of 3% for a typical ferry.
A bigger time saving of half an hour can
result in 10% savings.
Both ferry concepts aim at achieving
good cargo handling. The cruise ferry is
designed to have a dedicated shore based
link span also for the upper car deck, which
=`^%*9cfZbZf\]Z`\ekjf]gXjj\e^\im\jj\cj%
B
l
o
c
k

c
o
e

c
i
e
n
l

[
C
b
]
)
9cfZbZf\]Z`\ek$=ifl[\eldY\i
Froudes number [Fn])
Cruise ship)
Ferry)
Roro)

Shorl roule erry)

Cruise erry)
0.20 ) 0.25 ) 0.30 ) 0.35 ) 0.40)
0.9)
0.8)
0.7)
0.6
0.5)
0.4)
0.3)
0.2)
0.l)
0)
`e[\kX`c *0
R
D8I@E<&@E;<K8@C
T
8
@
C

T


=`^%+J_fikiflk\]\iipn`k_e\\ekipXe^c\Xkk_\Yfn%
together with straightforward cargo ows
in port, will aid in the loading process.
Internal ramps between the main and
upper decks of the ship, are not as efcient
as land based ramps that load directly at
both levels. No lower hold is used, as this
would slow down cargo handling. The lane-
meters in the lower hold are often less than
10% of the total capacity in conventional
ferries.
The smaller ferry has only a single RoRo
deck, so there is no need for double ramps.
At the same time, the bow ramp has been
moved to the starboard side, thereby
eliminating the need for a bow visor and
it is possible for a stronger and slimmer
bow form to be used. Smaller waterline
entry angles will give lower resistance, and
the narrow bow shape will signicantly
reduce added resistance in rough seas.
Automated mooring systems are another
way of reducing port time. Such systems
are particularly appropriate for ferries with
xed routes and a limited number of ports.
Speeding up the manoeuvring time is
also important for short turnaround times.
Efcient tunnel thrusters, both in the
bow and stern, enable good manoeuvring
characteristics. Azimuthing thrusters or
pods would yield even better steering
capabilities and both new concepts have
at least one steerable propulsor. Despite
the benets, steerable thrusters have so far
not been applied to any large extent in
existing ferries.
+' `e[\kX`c
Gifglcj`fe
Both new concepts have opted for a
propulsion solution combining a single
centre shaft line with one or more
Optipull pulling thrusters.
The short route ferry has one pulling
thruster directly behind the centre propeller
forming a contra rotating propeller (CRP)
couple. The CRP concept offers improved
propulsion efciency by recovering rotative
losses and benets from the wake eld
behind the centre skeg.
The cruise ferry has a Wing Thruster
conguration with two Optipull pulling
thrusters, one on each side of the central
propeller. This concept also offers improved
propulsion efciency, thanks to the lower
propeller loadings and benecial wake for
the centre propeller, resulting in high levels
of hull efciency. The propellers on the
pulling thrusters experience clean wake
elds, and the blades operate close to their
design condition throughout the full
revolution, thus giving good propeller
efciency.
However, the biggest advantage that
the two concepts have over conventional
twin screw propulsion, is the reduction
in resistance when the twin shaft lines are
replaced by a centre skeg propeller and
pulling thruster(s). As the appendages in
a conventional ferry can represent up to
20% of the vessels resistance, big savings
can be made by avoiding open shaft lines.
The CRP concept in particular will offer
signicantly lower resistance, thereby
yielding a power saving potential of up
to 815% .
However, one drawback associated with
CRP is that there is only a single steering
device. A small extra rudder is, therefore,
added to the short route ferry to comply
with the safe return to port requirements.
This issue is not, however, relevant for
the Wing Thruster concept as there are
two steering thrusters. Despite this, the
cruise ferry still features an optional rudder,
which in this case is located behind the
centre propeller. This rudder is used for
steering at high speeds when the thrusters
are not the most efcient means of
steering. Turning the thrusters alters
the incoming ow to the propellers and
directs the thrust vector to the side, thus
causing the ship to lose speed. A rudder
is, therefore, a more efcient steering
device at high speeds. When the speed
is low the situation is different, since the
steerable thrusters will then be able to
generate much higher side forces, which
is important during manoeuvring.
The centre rudder should ideally be of
the Energopac type. The torpedo shape
behind the propeller will improve
propulsion efciency and reduce pressure
pulses from the propeller.
MuHJI?BuJ;9>D?97B@EKHD7B&($(&&/
=`^%,9fnXe[jk\iek_iljk\igfn\i]fi\o`jk`e^]\ii`\j%
Klee\ck_iljk\igfn\i$^ifjjkfeeX^\&]\ii`\j
Cross lonnage [CT])
P
o
w
e
r

[
k
W
]
)
0 ) l0,000 ) 20,000 ) 30,000 ) 40,000 ) 50,000 ) 60,000 )
6000)
5000)
4000)
3000)
2000)
l000)
0)

Bow lhruslers)

Slern lhruslers)
Ecienl shorl roule erry)
Ecienl cruise erry)
+( `e[\kX`c
=`^%-:IGgifglcj`fen`k_
XeFgk`glccglcc`e^k_iljk\i%8jdXcc
il[[\i`jX[[\[]fifg\enXk\i
jk\\i`e^Xe[jk\\i`e^i\[le[XeZp%
=`^%.:il`j\]\iipn`k_N`e^
K_iljk\igifglcj`fe#`eZcl[`e^
k_\<e\i^fgXZil[[\i%
CE>kXebjXi\cfZXk\[fe
k_\fg\eX]k[\Zb%
R
D8I@E<&@E;<K8@C
T
R

D
8
I
@
E
<

&

@
E

;
<
K
8
@
C

DXZ_`e\ip
Both propulsion congurations are ideally
suited for combined diesel-electric and
diesel-mechanical (CODED) machinery.
Use of a diesel-electric power plant allows
high efciencies at low vessel speeds and
during manoeuvring. The load of the
engines can be optimized by starting and
stopping the engines according to the power
plant principle, and variable speed thruster
Rudder)
2.5 MW
CPP
PTO
drive saves power during slow speed
operation and manoeuvring. The centre
propeller is used as a mechanical booster,
giving low transmission losses when
engaged at high transit speeds. Mechanical
booster propulsion offers lower investment
costs than a full electric propulsion setup.
This combination of electric and
mechanical propulsion is especially suitable
for ferries on routes with both low speed
operation in restricted areas, and relatively
high speeds when allowed. Such conditions
result in an operating prole which includes
a wide variety of operating modes, making
optimization much more challenging.
A exible machinery arrangement is
efcient at many different power output
levels, and is therefore a preferable solution.
2.05 MW
G
4.0 MW
6L26
Bow lhruslers)
2 x 800 kW)
8L32
2.05 MW
G
6L26
=`^%/8j`dgc\m\ij`fef]:F;<;dXZ_`e\ipXe[:IGgifglcj`fe]fik_\j_fikiflk\]\iip%
7 MW
7 MW
17.1 MW
GEAR
G
G
15.2 MW
8.55 MW
9L50DF
6L50DF
5.7 MW
6L50DF
5.7 MW
9L50DF
6L50DF
5.7 MW
6L50DF
5.7 MW
8.55 MW
G
G
MSB MSB
2 x 2.5 MW
L N G
MDO
=`^%0K_\Zil`j\]\iip_Xj:F;<;dXZ_`e\ipn`k_j`o[lXc$]l\c\e^`e\j%
+) `e[\kX`c
MuHJI?BuJ;9>D?97B@EKHD7B&($(&&/
;lXc$]l\c
The cruise ferry is designed for operation on
LNG with marine diesel as back-up. The
machinery is based on six Wrtsil 50DF
dual-fuel engines, of which two are driving
the centre propeller via a twin-in single-out
reduction gear. The remaining four engines
are driving the generators. The engines are
divided into two separate compartments
to comply with safe return to port
requirements.
The use of LNG signicantly reduces
the vessels emissions, with CO
2
cut by
~25% and NO
X
emissions by 85%.
In addition, there are virtually no SO
X
emissions and the particle levels are
reduced signicantly as well. But lower
emissions are not the only advantages of
LNG. Energy demand is also reduced, and
the low temperature of LNG can be used
for cooling in the air-conditioning (AC)
systems, thus reducing the need to run
AC compressors. The savings potential is
estimated at ~1.1 MW of cooling power,
which corresponds to ~275 kW in electric
power assuming a COP (coefcient of
performance) factor of 4. Furthermore,
there is no need for an HFO tank or trace
heating, thereby reducing the use of the oil
red boiler.
N`e[gfn\i
When trying to improve energy efciency
in ships, thoughts soon turn to harnessing
some of the free energy from the
surrounding elements. Wind is the most
feasible of these options and there are
many means of using wind power, the
oldest, but still relevant method, being to
use sails. Flettner rotors and kites have also
emerged as potential options for creating
forward thrust from wind. Another
approach is to use some kind of wind
turbine to produce electric energy. The
benet of the latter is that it also works
when the ship is standing still in port, but
is perhaps less ideal in head winds.
A ferry is a rather challenging ship type
for wind power. The speed of the vessel is
usually high, which means that headwinds
become the apparent wind direction. The
sail device must, therefore, work well
at small angles of attack. A slower vessel
will have more side and downwind
encounters. The other typical feature of
a ferry is that the legs are short, and there
might be many turns and changes in the
heading. This means that the sail device
must be adjusted frequently.
Taking these special requirements into
account, the Flettner rotor seems to be the
most promising sail device. The Flettner
rotor, named after its inventor Anton
Flettner, is a vertical cylinder that is rotated
around its axis by a motor. As the wind
blows past the rotating cylinder, high
pressure on one side is formed with a
corresponding low pressure area on the
opposite side. This pressure difference will
generate a thrust force perpendicular to the
winds direction. There is also a drag force.
The forward components of these forces
will result in thrust to drive the ship ahead.
The advantage of the Flettner rotor,
compared to a sail or kite, is that the rotor
works at rather small angles of attack and
is simple to turn on and off. The rotor is
also more efcient than a sail. A Flettner
rotor can have a lift coefcient (C
L
) of
around 10, while normal sails are just
above 1. This means that the rotor can
generate about ten times more thrust with
the same sail area. The speed of the rotor
is adjusted by controlling the electric motor
driving it, and when the wind speed or
direction changes, the rotational speed and
direction is adjusted automatically to give
optimal thrust. If the wind power is no
longer needed, the rotor is simply stopped.
No need to lower any sails. It is a very
simple and easily adjusted device needing
no additional crew.
The Flettner rotor was rst applied in a
ship in the 1920s. It was tried a few times
in different ships, but no big breakthrough
occurred since the era of sailing ships was
coming to its end at that time. Now, once
again, it is becoming a hot topic as energy
costs are rising, and there is a need to
reduce the CO
2
footprint.
The cruise ferry concept features four
Flettner rotors to produce extra thrust.
Three of the rotors are integrated into
the funnel and one is part of the forward
mast structure. The exhaust pipes are fed
through two of the aft rotors. The idea has
been to introduce rotors without changing
the side prole of the vessel too much. The
rotors are relatively small in comparison to
the overall ship size. However, according to
an assumed operating prole and actual
wind data for the route, they are estimated
to produce an average thrust gain of 10%.
Their contribution is larger at lower speeds,
while at high speeds it is correspondingly
reduced.
The wind power suggested for
these ferries is not intended for primary
propulsion, as it was for old sailing ships,
but rather as a means of reducing fuel
consumption.
JfcXigfn\i
The cruise ferry design also features solar
panels to produce electric energy from
sunlight. About 800 m
2
of panels have
been located on the sloped sides of the AC
rooms on the top deck. Unfortunately,
todays solar panels will not produce very
much power in a ship operating in northern
Europe, and an annual average power of
11 kW was calculated for the ferry. This
is not very much for this type of ship, but
in the future when solar panel technology
becomes more efcient and cheaper, it can
become more interesting, especially for
ships operating in sunnier climates.
NXjk\_\Xki\Zfm\ip
One potential area for improving the
energy balance in a ship is to apply waste
heat recovery (WHR) systems for the
machinery. This has been done successfully
in container vessels, and is now also being
considered for a wider range of ship types,
ferries being one. In ferries, surplus energy
is available in the exhaust and engine
cooling water when operating at high
power. Unlike cruise ships, ferries bunker
fresh water in port and seldom produce
water onboard, so the waste heat is not
needed for these systems. The waste energy
should ideally be converted into electric
power to give more exible use.
Large container vessels use a WHR
system that combines exhaust power
turbines and steam cycles. This might not
be as well suited for ferries.
The cruise ferry is designed to use a
WHR system based on an Organic Ranking
Cycle (ORC). This system has not yet been
applied in ships, but there is some
development work being carried out. The
idea is to achieve good efciency already at
part load, and to be able to use low grade
heat from the cooling water. The system
in the cruise ferry is designed to utilize the
heat from two engines, as all engines are
used only for short periods of time in the
assumed operating prole. It is estimated
that the WHR system will be able to
recover about 1 MW of energy from two
engines at high load. The drawback with
the ORC is the large volume of space
needed for the equipment. This also limits
the feasibility of this system for very large
power plants.
`e[\kX`c +*
R
D8I@E<&@E;<K8@C
T
R

D
8
I
@
E
<

&

@
E

;
<
K
8
@
C

T


in the accommodation areas (HVAC,
=`^%('<jk`dXk\[gfn\ijXm`e^j]fik_\Zil`j\]\iip%
K_\Y`^^\jkjXm`e^jXi\[\i`m\[]ifdk_\_lccXe[k_\gifglcj`feZfeZ\gk%
<e\i^pjXm`e^j
J
X
m
`
e
^

R
b
N
T

Fg\iXk`fedf[\
Gfik
JfcXigfn\i
=c\kke\i
CE>Zfc[]fi8:
N?I
Gifglcj`feZfeZ\gk
?lcc[`d\ej`fej
/be (,be )+be
l4,000)
l2,000)
l0,000)
8000)
6000)
4000)
2000)
0)
l20)
l00)
80)
60)
40)
20)
0)
:fem\ek`feXc#kn`ej_X]k E\nj_fikiflk\]\iip
8eelXc]l\cZfejldgk`feXZZ%kfgifc\
j_fikiflk\]\iip
8lo`c`Xipgfn\ijXm`e^j
Large passenger areas mean high hotel
loads, and all means of reducing
consumption by using energy-efcient
lighting, smart HVAC (heating, ventilation
and air conditioning) systems, and well
designed galleys must be considered.
The large variations in demand for
propulsion power during the voyage also
mean that frequency-controlled pumps
are an attractive option for many auxiliary
systems. This is particularly true for ferries
operating in climates that are signicantly
cooler than the maximum temperatures
used when dimensioning the vessels
systems.
:FE:CLJ@FE
The two presented ferry concepts show two
different approaches to the making of
an efcient ferry. The smaller short route
ferry has a more limited number of features,
and costs are kept low. The improvements
are concentrated on developing an efcient
hull with a long waterline and sharp entry
angles, efcient CRP propulsion, and
CODED machinery in a simple
arrangement with only three engines.
It still saves up to 20% fuel compared to
a conventional ferry.
The cruise ferry features many additional
features for reducing energy consumption,
such as wind power, LNG, waste heat
recovery, solar power, and so on. These all
add to the complexity, but they also give a
quick payback. Compared to a conventional
ferry designed for the same mission, our
estimates indicate that the new concept
offers energy savings totalling more than
32%. This gure relates to the hull,
propulsion and machinery, and does not
include any potential energy reductions
either does it include savings
ough operational means of
t time, or smart operation
The gure can, therefore,
eased signicantly.
=`^%((8eelXc]l\cZfejldgk`fe]fik_\j_fikiflk\]\iipZfdgXi\[kf
XZfem\ek`feXc,dj_fik\i]\iipn`k_kn`ej_X]kc`e\j%
++ `e[\kX`c
MuHJI?BuJ;9>D?97B@EKHD7B&($(&&/
=`^%(*>\e\iXcXiiXe^\d\ek
f]k_\j_fikiflk\]\iip%
CREW
BAR / SEATS
RESTAURANT CAFE VENTILATION MOORING DECK
SL PL
MDO
SERVICE FW
BALLAST
HFO
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Frame spacing 600 mm
7200 7200 9600 12000 12000 9600 9600 9600 9600 7200 9600 6600
24600 40800 38400 33000
118800
127200
DECK 6
18 400 mm
crew cabins
1st CAPTAIN
OFFICER
CREW CREW OPEN DECK
CLASS
AC WHEEL
-10 0 10 20 30 40 ROOM HOUSE
AC
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
CREW
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
1st 1st CAPTAIN
OFFICER
OPEN DECK ROOM OFFICER OFFICER CLASS
DECK 5
15 600 mm
CREW
OPEN DECK MES OPENING
CREW CREW
CREWDAY BAR / CAFE SEATS
ROOM
LOCKERS SL PL ATRIUM
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
OPEN DECK
OPENING
OPENING OPEN DECK MES
DECK 4 / UPPER DECK
CREWMESS
MOORING DECK PANTRY
12 600 mm
RESTAURANT
GALLEY CAFE
COUNTER
CHILDRENS
OFFICES
PLAY AREA
OPENING
VENTILATION MOORING DECK
10 20
SL PL
IN DECK -10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
PUB / BAR ARCADES WC WC SHOP
RECEPTION
ENTRANCE
LOBBY
MOORING DECK
HOISTABLE DECK
9 500 mm
RAMP
SL
ESC
PL
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 ESC 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
RAMP
DECK 3 / MAIN DECK
6 900 mm
390 lane meters
LIFTING ESC
-10
SL
40
PL
100 PLATFORM ESC 50 ESC 0 10 20 30 60 70 80 90 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
HEELING HEELING
TANK
DECK 2 / TWEEN DECK
CONVERTERS
PROPULSION TANK
4 000 mm
AND
WORKSHOP
ECR
AC HOTEL STORE
COMPRESSORS SERVICE
MDO
TRANSFORMERS
HFO
FW
LIFTING
SETTLING
BOW BOW
ESC
SL
30 40 50
THRUSTER THRUSTER
100 110 120 PLATFORM ESC ESC -10 0 10 20 60 70 80 90 130 140 150 160 170 190 200 210
SERVICE
MACHINERY MACHINERY 180
SETTLING FW
HFO
PROVISION ENGINE
SERVICE
STORE STORE
MSB
HEELING
WORKSHOP
HEELING
TANK TANK
SEA
CHEST CHEST
SEA
DECK 1 / TANKTOP
1 500 mm
FUEL FUEL SERVICE
HANDLING HFO HANDLING
FW
SETTLING
ESC
ESC -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SETTLING 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
HFO
FW
SERVICE
SEA
CHEST CHEST
SEA
:il`j\]\iip J_fikiflk\]\iip
>ifjjkfeeX^\ ,/#''' 0,'' >K
C\e^k_fm\iXcc ))+ ()/ d
C\e^k_#Yg )(, ((/ d
9i\X[k_ *(%) (/%/ d
;iXl^_k#[\j`^e -#/ +%, d
;\gk_#dX`e[\Zb 0%/ -%0 d
;\gk_#lgg\i[\Zb (,%- ()%- d
;\X[n\`^_k ,''' (+'' kfej
J\im`Z\jg\\[ )+ (/%, befkj
GXoZXgXZ`kp )/'' 0'' gZj
GXoZXY`ej .-' $ gZj
:i\nZXY`ej (0' ), gZj
CXe\d\k\ij (+)' *0' d
CXe\d\k\ij#\okiXZXij /)' $ d
@ejkXcc\[gfn\i *0#0'' /('' bN
`e[\kX`c +,